Terrorist Ideology

See, I am still using the term terrorist, but mostly because it is easier for finding common understanding. During my experience in the US government it was very evident that few people working on terrorist issues understood the underpinnings of terrorism or the ideological and legal basis for terrorist actions. Most people had captured a few catch phrases, but that was about it. How can you fight a "war" if you don't understand its causes and motives? This is even more important when dealing with an insurgency.

Islam is a very legalistic religion, and filled with different schools of legal thought, especially regarding the interpretation of teachings. For terrorist insurgent groups to carry out their war and for them to obtain support of the people, there must be a basis in religion and an ideology steeped in Islam but which interprets certain events and actions in a way that supports their long term aims. To win the fight and end this insurgency we must understand the ideology, its goals, and combat them in ways other than kinetic.

I would recommend reading the works of Hassan al-Bana, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sayyid Qutb, his intellectual successor. These two man, with others, are the main ideological background of modern terrorism, even though at times they espoused a more moderate resistance to the oppression of the Egyptian government. We should also read "The Management of Savagery," by Abu Bakr Naji, an unidentified individual or group of individuals possibly affiliated with al'Qaeda. Two major points come immediately to mind when reading these works.

Many members of the Muslim Brotherhood, where jailed, and some executed, by the Egyptian government in the 1960's and 70's. All where tortured while in prison. There are many that would argue that what happened to America on September 11th, 2001, was born in the prisons of Egypt. Torture created a thirst for revenge, the humiliation suffered by these men led to intense hatred of the Egyptian regime and its principal support, the US. After being broken and humiliated, these men left prison with a deep desire to seek revenge. This would argue against using torture, or "enhanced interrogation" as a tool since it would only lead to greater desire to do us harm and breed more enemies.

The second thing that stands out when reading these works is that victory, as defined by these groups is not victory as we in the west would define it. In "The Management of Savagery" it becomes clear that the insurgents understand they cannot win a war with the US, nor do they intend to. Their objective is propaganda. They want the US to intervene militarily in the Middle east, become bogged down in wars, and cause terrible hardship for the people in the region. The goal is not to win, however, the goal is to not lose. By standing up to the US and not being totally defeated, the insurgent groups gain prestige and legitimacy in the region. In addition, with the suffering of the people at the hands of the US, the insurgents gain new recruits to continue the fight. In the end, the US will leave and the insurgents will fill the vacuum.

We can argue how important these writings are to modern insurgents, and I would argue they do play a role, but we need to understand them because the insurgent groups obtain intellectual and spiritual support from these writings, and they form the basis of their strategy.

More later.